1984 PLP 1030 (SCMR)

‑‑-S. 10‑State land, grant of‑Tube‑well (Sinking) Scheme, 1959, para. 7‑Allotment made in 1952 in favour of minor son of Govern ment servant‑Conditions prescribed in 1959 for grant of proprietary rights barring such allotments‑Board of Revenue rightly holding such allotment to be void‑Judgment of High Court refusing interference with order of Board of Revenue upheld. M. Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants. Respondents : Ex parte. Date of hearing : 18th June, 1984. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This appeal through special leave of this Court is directed against the judgment, dated 28‑6‑1973 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby relief was refused on a Constitutional petition arising out of the denial by the Punjab Board of Revenue to grant proprietary rights to the appellants, the allottees under a Tube‑well (Sinking) Scheme. The proposal for allotment in question was approved on 30‑1‑1953 while the lease agreement was executed on 29th of December, 1953. In 1970 the Collector resumed it amongst others on the ground that it was ab initio void for the reason that A. S. Tasneem appellant/allottee was a minor son of a Government Servant at the relevant time and that this being a disqualification the Tube‑wells Sinking lot was accordingly resumed. The challenge to this resumption having failed before the Commissioner and Board of Revenue, a Constitutional petition was moved in the High Court which having been dismissed, leave to appeal was granted by this Court to consider the following contention raised from the appellant side "that paragraph 7 of 1959 Scheme does not apply to the present case as the land in dispute was granted to the petitioners in 1952. It was submitted that the petitioners applied on the 7th February, 1953, and, therefore, the Scheme announced in 1959 was not applicable to them. The learned counsel referred to the notification issued by the Government of West Pakistan, dated the 23rd September, 1959, and contended that the persons who were granted land under Tube well Scheme 1952, was not subjected to any conditions mentioned in paragraph 7 of 1959 Scheme." Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the same contentions and has also advanced additional grounds. It is true that the conditions of allotment (1953) printed at page 64 Paper‑Book (the learned counsel has not read all other conditions) doe not contain the condition that the allotment could not be mad to the minor son of a Government servant but even assuming for the sake of argument that all other conditions in 1952‑53 were silent about this disqualification, it was provided in a directive issued in 1960 (printed all page 58 of the Paper‑Book) that whosever wanted to obtain the proprietor rights will have to satisfy the 1959 conditions which admittedly contain embargo regarding minor sons of Government servants. Learned counsel tried to avoid this condition by reading the 1960 directive as having applied only those 1959 conditions which are repeated therein. But this interpretation would lead to not only extraordinary but impossible results. The 1959 conditions repeated in the 1960 directive do not provide the entire mechanism for the allotments and their processing up to the completion. In case the argument of the learned counsel is accepted and the remaining 1959 conditions are not made applicable to the cases like the present One, a major vacuum will be created which could not be the underlying intention of the 1960 directive. Therefore, it seems the Board of Revenue rightly interpreted the 1960 directive as making it incumbent on those allottees Who were holding under the 1952 conditions to satisfy the relevant 1959 conditions so as to avail of the benefit granted by the latter conditions Lamely of obtaining the proprietary rights‑which aspect admittedly was missing in 1952 conditions which were applicable at the time of the initial allotment. That being so the allotment having been made to a minor son of a Government servant, was rightly held by the Board 6f Revenue to be "old. However, on account of the hardship observed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue the allottees were permitted to continue for 20 years' leases period. Not only this till now they have enjoyed more than that period and on that score there should be no grievance. This disposes f of the point on which the leave to appeal was granted. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the finding regarding the age of Tasneem appellant is not in accordance with law nor as argued, attention was paid to the case of Din Muhammad appellant who did not suffer from any disqualification as was attachable to Tasneem, Leave to appeal was not granted on any of these grounds or on other ancillary points raised by the learned counsel. We do not consider it a fit case for permitting new points to be urged. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.